TORTS or dare?

– Midterms |1
I. INTRODUCTION
TORT  An unlawful violation of a private right, NOT created by contract,
which gives rise to an action for damages; a wrongful act or
omission, resulting in breach of a private legal duty, as
distinguished from a mere breach of contractual duty (Aquino, Beda
reviewer)
DAMAGE v DAMAGES v INJURY Damage – actionable loss, hurt or harm which results from the unlawful
act, omission or negligence of another
Damages – sum of money which the law awards/imposes as pecuniary
compensation, recompense/satisfaction for an injury done or wrong
sustained as a consequence of either a breach of a contractual obligation or
a tortious or illegal act
Injury – legal invasion of a right.

SO: as a GR: the INJURY causes the DAMAGE which makes the injurer liable
for DAMAGES. However, there can be damage without injury (damnum
absque injuria)
KINDS OF TORT LIABILITIES 1. Negligent Tort (Negligence) – omission to do acts required under
the attendant circumstances resulting in damage/injury to another;
voluntary act/omission which results in injury to others, without
intending to do the same
2. Intentional Tort – Tort or wrong perpetrated by one who intends to
do that which the law has declared wrong. Includes Art. 32, 34,
and culpa aquiliana under Art. 2176
3. Strict Liability in Tort – person is made liable independent of fault
or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts. (ex:
product liability; doctrine of enterprise liability whew)
CULPA AQUILIANA CONTRACTUAL CRIMINAL
AQUILIANA/CONTRACTUAL/CRIMINAL Legal basis of liability
Fault or negligence That there was a No crime unless there
resulting in contract + breach of is a law punishing the
damage/injury to the contract act
another
Presumption of negligence
NO presumption of There is presumption Innocence is
negligence. Injured of negligence as long presumed until
party must prove as it can be proved contrary proven so no
negligence of that there was a presumption of
defendant breach of contract. negligence
Defendant must prove
that there was no
negligence in
performance of
contract
CASE DOCTRINES
BLTB CO. v IAC By the contract of carriage, carrier assumed express obligation to transport
the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary
diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |2
might be suffered by its passengers is right away attributable to the
fault/negligence of the carrier
ABOITIZ v CA ^SAME; + It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of the carrier
and the passenger does not cease the moment the passenger alights from
the carrier vehicle, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable
time/opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises
DANGWA TRANSPO v CA It is the duty of common carriers of passengers xxx to stop their
conveyances for a reasonable opportunity for passengers to board and
enter the vehicle. They are liable for injuries suffered by boarding
passengers resulting from a sudden starting up/jerking of their
conveyances.

II. QUASI-DELICT

1. ART. 2176. QUASI-DELICT  Whoever by act or omission

ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION
(R-O-W)
REQUISITES FOR A CLAIM OF
DAMAGES BASED ON QUASI-DELICT
ANDAMO v IAC
EQUITABLE LEASING CORP v LUCITA
SUYOM
 Causes damage to another
 There being fault/negligence,
 If there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
1. A right in favor of plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever
law it arises or is created;
2. An obligation on the part of defendant to respect and not to violate
such right; and
3. A wrongful act or omission on part of such defendant violative of
the right of plaintiff
1. Damage suffered by plaintiff
2. Fault/negligence of defendant
3. Connection of cause and effect between fault/negligence of
defendant and damage incurred by the plaintiff
CASE DOCTRINES
Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 is entirely separate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the RPC.
(But note that law also prohibits double-recovery of damages for the same
act/omission)
In an action based on quasi-delict, the registered owner of a motor vehicle
is solidarily liable for the injuries and damages caused by the negligence
of the driver, in spite of the fact that the vehicle may have already been the
subject of an unregistered Deed of Sale in favor of another person

2. Art. 2177. NO DOUBLE  Responsibility for fault/negligence under Art. 2176 is entirely
RECOVERY RULE separate and distinct
 From liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code
 Plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act/omission
CASE DOCTRINES
VIRATA v OCHOA Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable
doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil
liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to quasi-
delict or “culpa aquiliana”

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |3
ATLANTIC GULF v CA There is no double recovery when the basis of one action is culpa
contractual while the other is delict
CANCIO v ISIP If case dismissed based on criminal action, case may still prosper if based
on contract (other sources of obligations) *from Atty. Calleja

III. NEGLIGENCE
1. Art. 1173. CONCEPT.  Fault or negligence of obligor
 Consists of the omission of that diligence
 Which is required by the nature of the obligation
 And corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place
 If law/contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance,
 that which is expected of a good father of a family is required.
CASE DOCTRINES
PICART v SMITH Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct/guarding
against the consequences
CITYTRUST BANKING v IAC Banks are negligent when it failed to credit deposits when the name of the
depositor is clearly written on the deposit slip, even if the depositor wrote
an incorrect account number
FAR EAST BANK v QUERIMIT A bank is negligible for releasing funds without the surrender of the bearer
instrument
REYES v IAC The degree of diligence required of banks in handling deposits is
EXTRAORDINARY diligence. This applies only to cases where banks are
acting in their FIDUCIARY capacity, that is, as depository.
UCPB v RAMOS A bank is negligent when it failed to determine the correct identity of its
debtor for purposes of distraint or levy

2. NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE
CAUSE
WHAT CLAIMANT MUST ESTABLISH
FOR ENTITLEMENT OF DAMAGES
 That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and
without which the result would not have occurred
 More comprehensively:
- That acting first and producing injury
o Either immediately OR
o By setting other events in motion
- all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events
- each having a close causal connection to its immediate predecessor
- The final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a
natural and probable result of the cause which first acted
- Under such circumstances, that the person responsible for the first
event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act/default that
an injury to some person might probably result therefrom
 Relation between the omission and the damage
 That the defendant’s negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina


SABIDO v CUSTODIO
EDNA RAYNERA v FREDDIE HICESTAS
BENGUETE ELECTRIC v CA
GUILLERMO ADRIANO v ROMULO
PANGILINAN
TORTS or dare? – Midterms |4
CASE DOCTRINES
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts/omission of two or more
persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in combination,
the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is
impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the
injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone
might not have caused the entire injury, or the same damage might have
resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor
Drivers of vehicles who bump the rear of another vehicle are presumed to
be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by evidence.
Companies vested with public interest also have the duty to ensure the
safety of the public by the proper maintenance and upkeep of facilities
Loss brought about by the concurrent negligence of 2 persons shall be
borne by the one who was in the immediate, primary and overriding
position to prevent it

3. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE RULE:

 Person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the
burden of proving of such fault/negligence;
 Facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established
by competent evidence
CASE DOCTRINES
PLDT v CA ^THE RULE ABOVE HEHE
COLLIN MORRIS v CA In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach
must be WANTON and DELIBERATELY injurious or the one responsible
ACTED FRADULENTLY or with MALICE/BAD FAITH. Where in reaching the
contract of carriage, the defendant airline is not shown to have acted
fraudulently/in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of obligation, which the parties had
foreseen/could have reasonably foreseen

PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE:
A. RES IPSA LOQUITUR  “The thing speaks for itself”
 Rule of evidence
 Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of an explanation by the defendant that the accident arose
from want of care. (Batiquin v CA)
REQUISITES 1. Accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence
of someone’s negligence
2. Caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant/defendants
3. Possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff
responsible is eliminated
CASE EXAMPLES (doctrines same throughout)
3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina
 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |5
AFRICA v CALTEX Defendants (employees of a gasoline station) were held responsible for a
fire, which would not have spread to neighboring houses were it not for
the defendants’ acts, i.e. the driver of the gasoline tank wagon who
transferred the contents of the tank into the underground storage when
the fire broke out, their failure to provide a concrete wall high enough to
prevent the flames from leaping over.
BATIQUIN v CA Dr. Batiquin was held liable for leaving a piece of rubber (part of a rubber
glove) inside the abdomen of Mrs. Villegas after a caesarian operation
performed on her. Such negligence of Dr. Batiquin caused infection on the
ovaries of Mrs. Villegas. It was held here that the entire proceeding of the
caesarean section was under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin.
REYES v SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL Res ipsa loquitur has no application in a suit against a physician/surgeon,
which involves the merits of diagnosis/of a scientific treatment. The
physician or surgeon is not required at his peril to explain why any
particular diagnosis was not correct/why any particular scientific
treatment did not produce the desired result. ** (I don’t understand this
haha)

B. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR  Also discussed under Vicarious liability.

Art. 2180
C. VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC RULES 2184:
 In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his
Art. 2184 and 2185 driver,
 If former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence,
 Prevented the misfortune
 Disputably presumed that a driver was negligent if:
- he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
- violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding 2 months
 if owner not inside the vehicle, 2180 applies

2185:
 Unless there’s proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
CASE DOCTRINES
BLTB v IAC In an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an
express finding of fault/negligence on part of carrier in order to hold it
responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger. Under
the contract of carriage, the common carrier assumed the express
obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to
observe extraordinary diligence
MANUEL AND SUPERLINE TRANSPO v A person involved in a vehicular accident cannot be exempt from liability
CA when it clearly appears from the evidence that h was at fault. The fact that
the party driving the other vehicle did not have a license at the time of the
accident cannot change the other person’s liability therefrom.

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina


D. COMMON CARRIER
Art. 1733
Art. 1755
Art. 1756
Art. 1734 (EXCEPTIONS; L/D/D of
GOODS)
DSR-SENATOR LINES v FEDERAL
SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED v
ANDION FERNANDEZ
TORTS or dare? – Midterms |6
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
public policy:
 Are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them
 According to all the circumstances of each case
 Bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide
 Using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons
 With due regard for all the circumstances
 In case of death of or injuries to passengers:
 Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration
of the GOODS, unless the same is due to any of the following causes ONLY:
 Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or
calamity
 Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil
 Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods
 Character of the goods/defects in the packing/in the containers
 Order or act of competent public authority
CASE DOCTRINES
Fire is NOT one of the enumerated exceptions, which would exempt a
carrier from liability for loss/destruction of cargo.
When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular
flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then
has every right to expect that he be transported on that flight and on that
date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach of
contract of carriage.

E. DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND Prima facie presumption of negligence on part of defendant if:
SUBSTANCES  Death/injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or
substances
Art. 2188  Such as firearms and poisons
 EXCEPT: when possession/use is indispensable in his occupation or
business

DEFENSES
A. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury:
Art. 2179  He cannot recover damages

BUT if his negligence was only contributory:

 The immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant’s lack of due care,

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |7
 The plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate
the damages to be awarded.
Emergency Rule One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid
the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better
method,

UNLESS the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his

own negligence (McKee v IAC)
CASE DOCTRINES
ESTACION v BERNARDO To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown
that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of
warning signs of an impending danger to health and body
CADIENTE v MACAS The underlying precept of contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is
partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover
damages in full, but must proportionately bear the consequences of his
own negligence. The defendant is thus held liable only for the damages
actually caused by his negligence

B. ASSUMPTION OF RISK It is a voluntary assumption of a risk of harm arising from the negligent
conduct of the defendant or from the nature of the obligation itself. It
presupposes an intentional exposure to a known peril. (Pineda [2009])
CASE DOCTRINES
AFIALDA v HISOLE (haha the carabao case; and its caretaker)
Xxx Being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the
risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he
must take the consequences
ONG v METROPOLITAN WATER The rule is well-settled that the owners of resorts to which people generally
DISTRICT are expressive or by implication invited are legally bound to exercise
ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such
resorts, to the end of making them reasonably safe for visitors

Such owner is not in any sense, however, deemed to be the insurer of the
safety of patrons. And the death of a patron within its premises does not
cast upon him the burden of excusing himself from any presumption of
negligence

C. LAST CLEAR CHANCE (aww) Elements:

1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts and is unable

to get out from such situation by any means
2. Defendant knows that plaintiff is in danger and knows/should
have known that the plaintiff was unable to get out from such
situation
3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the impending
harm/injury through the exercise of due diligence, but had failed
to do so;
4. Such failure is the proximate cause of the injury
3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina
 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |8

Does not apply in:

 Collapse of a building/structure
 Suit between the owner and passenger
 When injury cannot be avoided by application of all means at hand
after peril has been discovered
CASE DOCTRINES
BUSTAMANTE v CA Doctrine of LCC cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a
test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person
by reason of his discovery of the latter’s peril. It cannot also apply as
between defendants concurrently negligent.
MCKEE v IAC The person who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered
in law as solely responsible for the consequences thereof.
CANLAS v CA When both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably
later in point in time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault/negligence brought about the occurrence of the
incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences as arising
therefrom.
PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v BAESA For the doctrine to apply, it is necessary that the person who allegedly had
the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the
peril/should, with exercise of due care, have been aware of it.

D. PRESCRIPTION The following actions must be instituted within FOUR years:

 Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
Art. 1146  Upon a quasi-delict

The action must be instituted form the time the tortious act is
known/discovered.
CASE DOCTRINES
CALLANTA v CARNATION PH AND An action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from his employment
NLRC for alleged unjustified causes is one for “injury to the rights of the plaintiff”,
and must be brought within four years

E. FORTUITOUS EVENTS Requisites:

1. Cause is independent of the debtor/obligor’s will
2. It was an unforeseen/unavoidable event
3. Happening of the event made it impossible for the debtor/obligor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
4. Debtor didn’t take advantage of the event to aggravate the injury to
the creditor/oblige

Exceptions:
1. When the law expressly declares so (that there’s no liability)
2. Expressly stated in contract
3. When the obligation’s nature requires the assumption of risk

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |9
4. When the obligor/debtor is in fault/has promised to deliver the
same thing to 2 or more persons who don’t have the same interest
CASE DOCTRINES
BAYASEN v CA Skidding is an unforeseen event and cannot be regarded as negligence
NPC v CA When the “fortuitous event” is found to be in part the result of the
participation of man, whether due to his active intervention/neglect/failure
to act, the whole occurrence is then humanized and removed from the
rules applicable to the acts of God. (so dapat, no human intervention at all)
ELIAS CIPRIANO v CA When there is a statutory duty imposed and there is a failure to comply
with that duty, he is deemed to be negligent rendering him liable for
damages. While the loss may be caused by a fortuitous event, the
circumstances cannot exempt him from liability for loss.
JAPAN AIRLINES v CA Common carriers are not absolutely responsible for all injuries or damages
if the same were caused by a fortuitous event

F. DILIGENCE The kinds of diligence to be observed by the parties:

1. Diligence stipulated by the parties
2. If there is no stipulation, the diligence required by law governing
the particular obligation
3. In the absence of the foregoing, the diligence which is required of a
good father of the family
G. MISTAKE AND WAIVER MISTAKE – Art. 1331

In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the

substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to those
conditions which have principally moved one/both parties to enter into
the contract.

Mistake as to the identity or qualifications of one of the parties will vitiate

consent only when such identity or qualifications have been the principal
cause of the contract. A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its
correction

Concept of Error must include both:

1. Ignorance (absence of knowledge with respect to a thing
2. Mistake (wrong conception about a thing/belief in the existence of
some circumstance/fact/event that does not exist in reality)

WAIVER – Art. 6

Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to L/PO/PP/M/GC or

prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law
H. OTHERS  Privileged communications
 Malicious prosecution
- There must be absence of probable cause and
- Illegal malice on the petitioners
 Damnum absque injuria – for which the law gives no remedy.
 Litis pendencia

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina


IV. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1. “VICARIOUS LIABILITY”?
A. PARENTS AND GUARDIANS
TORTS or dare? – Midterms |10
 Occurs when a person is not only liable for torts committed by
him, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP and for whom he is responsible. (Tamargo
v CA)
Art. 2180:

xxx

The father and, in case of his death/incapacity, the mother, are responsible
for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated

persons who are under their authority and live in their company
CASE DOCTRINES
TAMARGO v CA No presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents
could arise if the adopted was not in fact subject to their control at the
time the tort was committed.

B. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF xxx

ESTABLISHMENTS
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions.

xxx

Requisites:
1. Act must have been done in the service of a branch where he/she is
employed/or in occasion of his/her functions
2. There must be an employer-employee relationship (homagahd
labor hehe)
CASE DOCTRINES
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL v The act/omission which caused the damage/prejudice must have occurred
CA while an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks

C. EMPLOYERS xxx

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business/industry

“Within the scope of his assigned
tasks”
Requisites:
1. Employer-employee relationship
2. Employee is acting within the scope of his assigned task
Any act done by an employee in furtherance of the interests of the
employer/for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of
the injury or damages (Filamer Christian Institute v IAC)
3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

ARMANDO JOSE v CA
VICTORY LINER v HEIRS OF MALECDAN
CEREZO v TUAZON
FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v IAC
FILIPINAS BROADCASTING SYSTEM v
AMEC-BCCM
TORTS or dare? – Midterms |11
CASE DOCTRINES
Before the presumption of the employer’s negligence can arise, the
negligence of the employee must first be established
Employers may be relieved of responsibility for the negligent acts of their
employees acting within the scope of their assigned task only if they can
show that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. Thus, the employers have the burden of proving that they
have indeed exercised such diligence, both in the selection of the
employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties
An employer’s liability based on a quasi-delict is primary and direct, while
the employer’s liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary. The words
“primary and direct” as contrasted with “subsidiary”, refer to the remedy
provided by law for enforcing the obligation. The aggrieved party may sue
the employer directly
Working scholars are not considered as employees of the
school/college/university. The students work for the latter in exchange for
the privilege to study free of charge; provided the students are given real
opportunity xxx
Joint tortfeasors are all persons who command, instigate, promote,
cooperate in, aid or abet in the commission of a tort or who approve of it
after it is done, if done for their benefit. The corporation which operates
the radio station and who is the employer of the radio hosts, is solidarily
liable to pay for damages arising from libelous broadcasts

D. STATE xxx

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent;
but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall
be applicable

xxx

The State cannot be sued without its consent, EXCEPT:

MERITT v GOVERNMENT
MENDOZA v DE LEON
1. When it is performing proprietary functions
2. When the State enters into a contract with a private person
3. Acts through a special agent (one who receives a fixed
compensation foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office)
CASE DOCTRINES
The Government is only liable for the negligent acts of its officers, agent
and employees when they are acting as special agents. A chauffeur of the
General Hospital is not such a special agent
Municipal corporations, when acting in their corporate capacity, fall within
the operation of the rule (that superior must answer civilly of the
negligence or want of skill of his agent/servant in the course of his
employment)

E. TEACHERS/HEADS OF xxx
ESTABLISHMENT
3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina
 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |12
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable
for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody
CASE DOCTRINES
SPOUSES PALISOC v BRILLANTES “So long as they remain in their custody” – protective and supervisory
custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over their
pupils as long as they are at attendance in school and includes recess time
AMADORA v CA Rule applies to all schools – academic and non-academic
 If academic: tort committed by student will attach to the teacher in
charge
 If of arts and trades: liability shall attach to head
PSBA v CA Damage should have been caused by pupils or students of the educational
institution (lol but in this case, the Court still said that there is an implicit
obligation of providing students with an atmosphere conducive to learning
i.e. provide the proper security measures)
MERCADO v CA* (contradicts another Applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any acad institution
case) and contemplates where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher. (case
decided in 1960, baka bad jurisprudence na to)
SALUDAGA v FEU School is not absolved of any liability for injuries sustained by its students
even if it employed a security agency to be in charge of the school’s
security. The said agency however may be held liable

2.PRIMARY LIABILITY
A. POSSESSORS/USERS OF
ANIMALS
AFIALDA v HISOLE
Art. 2183
Possessor of an animal/whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault fo the person who has suffered damage.
CASE DOCTRINES
The possessor and user of the animal, and not necessarily its owner, is liable
for damages for injuries the said animal may have caused

B. OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES 2184:

 In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his
driver,
 If former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence,
 Prevented the misfortune
 Disputably presumed that a driver was negligent if:
- he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
- violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding 2 months
 if owner not inside the vehicle, 2180 applies

2185:

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

 TORTS or dare? – Midterms |13
Unless there’s proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation

In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with the driver if:
1. He was in the vehicle
2. He could have, through due diligence, prevented the misfortune

CASE DOCTRINES
CHAPMAN v UNDERWOOD For an owner-passenger of a vehicle to be liable for damage caused by his
driver, the act complained of must be continued in the presence of the
owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes
his driver’s act his own
FIRST MALAYAN LEASING v CA The registered owner of a vehicle, not the de facto owner thereof, is liable
for the damage caused by the vehicle.
FGU INSURANCE v CA Car renter and car lessee, not of a nature of an employer-employee
relationship wherein the employee’s acts may result in his employer liable,
NOR between a master-driver relationship
TISON v SPS. POMASIN A causal connection must exist between the injury received and the
violation of the traffic regulation. Negligence, consisting in whole/part, of
violation, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of
the injury

C. MANUFACTURERS AND Art. 2187

PROCESSORS
Manufacturers and processors of:
 Foodstuffs
 Drinks
 Toilet articles and
 Similar goods

Shall be liable for death/injuries caused by any noxious or harmful

substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them
and the consumers

Art. 97 of RA 7394

Any Filipino/foreign manufacturer, producer and any importer shall be

liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers
by defects resulting from:
 Design
 Manufacture
 Construction
 Assembly and erection
 Formulas and handling in making up
 Presentation or packaging of their products
 As well as insufficient or inadequate information on the use and
hazards thereof
A product is defective when:

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina


D. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
CITY OF MANILA v CA
LAUDENCIO TORIO v CA
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN v CA
TORTS or dare? – Midterms |14
 It does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it; taking relevant
circumstance into consideration, including but not limited to:
- Presentation of product
- Use and hazards reasonably expected of it
- The time it was put into circulation
 Product not considered defective just because another better
quality has been placed in the market
 Manufacturer etc shall not be held liable when it evidences:
- That it did not place the product on the market
- That although it did place the product on market, such product has
no defect
- That the consumer/third party is solely at fault.
Art. 2189
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death
of or injuries suffered by any person by reason of the defective condition
of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under
their control or supervision
CASE DOCTRINES
Article 2189 does not require that the defective roads/streets belong to the
province etc, from which responsibility is exacted. What is essential is that
the province etc have either “control or supervision” over said street/road
If the injury is caused while in the performance of a governmental function,
there can be no recovery from the municipality unless there is an existing
statute on the matter; nor from its officers, so long as they performed their
duties honestly and in good faith or that they did not act wantonly and
maliciously. With respect to proprietary functions, a municipal corporation
is subject to be sued upon contracts and in tort.
While the DPWH may have issued the requisite permit of the excavation on
a road, the Municipality is not thereby relieved of its liability for its own
gross negligence. The obligation of the Municipality to maintain the safe
condition of the road within its territory is a continuing one. Knowledge of
the condition of the road and the defects and/or obstructions on the road
may be actual or constructive.
3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina